By Cassie Ferguson

Gazette Staff

For the past month, the dining halls have been the battleground for one of the biggest debates in recent Harvard undergraduate history.

The topic? Whether to end the College's five-year grape boycott.

Bunches of students organized pro- and anti-grape campaigns, barraged each other with e-mail, posted fliers and Web pages, held candlelight vigils, decorated sidewalks, and finally voted last week 1,694 to 1,472 to bring back the forbidden fruit.

The debate symbolized more than the fate of a small, thin-skinned fruit.

"The issues are much deeper than just grapes," said Adam Kovacevich '99, chair of the victorious ad hoc Grape Coalition and the son of California grape farmers. "One of them is the right to choose what you want to eat."

Offered one of the opposition leaders, Roel Saldivar '01, "The debate was about working conditions and human rights. We wanted to make a point that Harvard is aware of rights violations."

The "Great Grape Debate" started when three students, Sam Yagan '99, Adam Vaina '98, and Marco Simons '97 (members of the Harvard Undergraduate Dining Advisory Committee), put the squeeze on Dining Services to reintroduce grapes to the dining halls last spring.

"In our feedback cards and meetings with the Dining Advisory Committee, grapes would come up every once in a while," said Alexandra McNitt, project manager for Dining Services. "So we decided it might be time to start serving them again."

"We didn't think it would cause such a stir."

In late October, the Harvard Crimson announced that grapes would be part of the undergraduate meal plan starting Nov. 9.

Students, particularly those with the activist group Unite!, started protesting the action on feedback cards in the dining halls, and by Nov. 7 enough anti-grape momentum had gathered to postpone the return of the fruit until a vote could be taken.

While the anti-grape forces fomented, a separate pro-grape movement, led by Kovacevich, gathered strength.

"The Grape Coalition was founded days after the referendum was announced," he said. "Based on past observation, it seemed that there would be a number of groups opposing the return of grapes to the dining halls. It was disconcerting that there would be no one to present the opposing view, so I got together with other students to circulate our message."

His group of about 30 students looked up newspaper articles and dredged the Internet. They gathered information from government agencies, including the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Environmental Protection Agency. They checked facts with the American Cancer Society and the Grape Workers and Farmers Coalition in California.

"The research was good for all of us. As the debate went on we strengthened and clarified our position," says Kovacevich.

They pitted those facts against the information gathered by students supporting a boycott started by César Chavez and the United Farm Workers in 1984 and joined by Harvard students in 1992.

"Farm workers face many injustices, including poor working conditions and the threat of pesticides," according to Saldivar. "The EPA reports that 300,000 farm workers per year receive pesticide poisoning."

On Dec. 3, students voted electronically with their I.D. cards to end the boycott -- allowing Dining Services to purchase grapes at its discretion, depending on availability, price, and quality. A red seedless Chilean variety is expected to make its appearance at an upcoming Sunday brunch.

It wasn't just students who benefited from the grape referendum, noted McNitt. "I think we learned a lot about the issues around the boycott, too."

Not that Dining Services minded all the discussion; the operation tries be as responsive as possible to students.

"We aim to be very customer-focused," said Executive Chef Michael Miller. "The whole thing started when we were trying to accommodate student requests. We're happy the students got to make the choice."